On Wednesday 19 January 1966 Harold Holt learnt he would soon become the 17thprime minster of Australia. Tom Frame in his book “The Life and Death of Harold Holt” noted, “Just before Cabinet rose the Prime Minister (Robert Menzies) said to them: “Well, gentlemen, this is the last time I shall be with you”, and he ended his long rule with a few simple sentences’. Menzies’ decision was conveyed to a meeting of the joint Government parties at 11 a.m. on 20 January.” The death of the Defence minister, Senator Sir Shane Paltridge, also on 19 January, and his funeral, delayed Harold Holt’s swearing in until 26 January by the Governor General Richard Casey. Casey himself was a sometime advocate of flying saucers. See the link https://theozfiles.blogspot.com/search?q=Casey
Also on 19 January 1966 an event took place near Euramo, Rockingham Road, South of Tully in northern Queensland. The RAAF (Royal Australian Air Force) files describe the famous Tully incident in the following manner:
“At about 9.00 a.m. on 19th January, 1966, Mr. G.A. Pedley, a banana grower of Tully, Qld, observed a light grey non reflecting dull object, reported to be about 25 feet long and 8 feet deep, rise vertically then climb on an angle of 45from a height of about 30 feet above marshland which was situated about 25 yards away from his position. There was an associated hissing noise which decreased as the 'object' rose. The apparent shape was described as 'two saucers, face to face', but no structural detail was observed. The duration of the observation was approximately 15 seconds and it disappeared in mid air whilst receding into the distance (not assessed).
"A clearly defined near circular depression remained in evidence in swamp grass at the point from which the object was seen rising, and measured about 32 feet long by 25 feet wide. The grass was flattened in clockwise curves to water level within the circle and the
reeds had been uprooted from the mud. There was no scorching of grass or surrounding trees and the observer stated that there was no smell of combustion...”
These 2 events – the rise of PM Harold Holt and the Tully UFO event - were not generally thought to be connected, until the recent discovery by Westall researcher Shane Ryan in the National Archive of Australia (NAA) files (Series Number M2606, Control Symbol 112, Item number 4982058) amongst personal papers of PM Holt. 6 pages of handwritten material were sent to the new prime minister.
They were from John Busst, a lifetime close friend of Harold Holt. Between January 19 and February 24, the incident, generally identified with nearby Tully, had become a media sensation.
MISSION BEACH 15
BINGIL BAY,
VIA EL ARISH,
NORTH QUEENSLAND
Feb.24. 1966.
Dear Harry,
Herewith the result of my rather thorough investigation into the sighting of the Flying Saucer at Euramo. I have had the young man, George Pedley, here and closely questioned him on all aspects. On the basis of this, and also as the result of questioning a large number of people acquainted with him at Euramo, I have formed the opinion that, as a witness, he is a quite reliable witness. In my own mind, I have no doubt that he sighted the object he describes.
The enclosed photograph has been certified as an exact replica of the pad made by the U.F.O., by numerous witnesses who visited the scene the same day, and on the following day.
To my mind, as a coast watcher, the most curious feature of the whole affair is that neither of the two teams of R.A.A.F investigators even bothered to interview the young man concerned. What gives, chum? Coast watching and other allied activities would thus offer a somewhat futile activity.
I have no doubt the young man saw the object he described – I questioned him repeatedly, and could not shake his description in any way, and it in no way resembles a helicopter of any design. The pad itself (as per photograph) is most unusual, in that the area flattened is also sucked up about 3-4 feet off the ground. Alf Macdonald (of the Rain Forest Committee) was able to walk, in a crouched position right across the area. Also that the grass and reeds were bruised, not burnt. I would welcome your comments – off the record, if necessary.
All well here – more later.
Affectionately, Johnnie.
To his 4 page covering letter he included a 2 page statement:
Euramo. Jan 19thapprox. 9 a.m.
George Pedley, aged 28, banana farmer of Euramo, while driving to work on his farm in an old Ferguson kerosene (?) tractor, heard, above the considerable noise of his tractor, a loud hissing noise, which he thought at first to be a blow-out in his tractor tyre (rear). On glancing ahead, at a distance of no more than 25 yards, he observed a large grey cylindrical object, approximately 25 feet long by 9 feet deep, shaped like two inverted saucers joined together with protuberances approx. 2 ft high, on the top and the bottom (as per his enclosed sketch). The object was hovering above the 9 foot high reeds when first observed, suddenly rose to approx. 30 ft, and set off at terrific speed, vanishing at 45 degree angle on a S.S.W. course in the direction of Charters Towers. No sign of human life aboard, no portholes or other apertures in either top or bottom of structure. No sign whatsoever of flame, smoke or vapour. Very loud noise decreased as object disappeared at high speed. Whole incident occupied approx. ½ minute at the longest.
On examination by numerous credible witnesses, the reeds in the pad itself were found not only to be flattened, as per photograph, but were also lifted out approx. 3-4 feet off the ground, apparently by suction, in a clockwise direction. The following day, approx. 50 ft.away and close together, were discovered two similar pads in structure, but smaller in size and rotated by the same principle but in an anti-clockwise direction.
In a 2 ½ hour cross examination, the witness was quite unshakeable in his description of the object, and did not once, in any way, vary any detail of the object. The sighting is unusual in that it took place at 9 a.m. on a clear day.
J.H. Büsst.
Bingil Bay 20 Feb. 1966
I was familiar with the name John Busst. He had been featured in historian Iain McCalman’s 2013 book “The Reef – A passionate History.” In 2024 McCalman focused on Busst in a book simply called “John Busst – Bohemian artist and saviour of reef and rainforest.” McCalman didn’t mention the “Flying saucer” letter in his new book and confirmed to Shane Ryan, "Dear Shane, Thanks for your email about John Busst and UFOs. I had no idea about this but he was a hard headed guy so I would take it seriously. Good luck. Kind regards. Iain." Busst had instilled a love of the Barrier Reef, northern Queensland and the rain forests, into Holt. The PM was a passionate scuba diver, sometimes in dangerous situations, such as shark infested waters. The passion led to the Holts having a hideaway place not far from the Bussts. The danger angle would unfortunately feature in the December 1967 disappearance of Holt in the wild seas off Portsea, Victoria. The Bussts were staying with the Holts at the time.
It is fascinating to see the endorsement that John Busst gives to George Pedley’s sighting, along with the thoughts of historian Iain McCalman, inspired into his deep biographical journey through Busst’s life.
The reference to the RAAF not visiting Pedley, is sustained in the RAAF files, where it is confirmed that police conducted the interview.
For me, the Busst material also provided added potential evidence for the reasons why the RAAF grappled with the UFO problem in such torturous ways during 1966, as I have previously described in detail in my 1996 document (located on the Project 1947 web site) “UFOs Sub Rosa Down Under”. I have described the issue below:
THE RAAF AND THE UFO PROBLEM
A Department of Air minute paper, dated February, 1966, revealed that there were “no written responsibilities for (RAAF) Operational Command in the UFO field.”
It indicated that the minute writer (Squadron Leader ____ AI-2)had “reviewed the current ‘Ad Hoc’ system in the practice of processing U.F.O reports and with ‘minor criticisms’, found that it appeared “to be working satisfactorily, entailing the minimum of work by this Directorate [i.e. Directorate of Air Force Intelligence - DAFI - B.C.].’”
After much discussion a DAFI directive was issued to both Commands (Operational and Support Commands - B.C) in March, 1966. Group Captain I.S. Podger (for the Chief of the Air Staff), wrote in it:
The main purpose of the investigation of any UFO is to establish whether or not the subject of the report poses a threat to the security of Australia. The identification of the cause of the UFO report and its classifications as aircraft, balloon, missile, astronomical body or phenomena etc, is of minor importance and mainly for the benefit of members of the public whose interest may have been aroused by the report.
The directive also specified:
No attempts should be made to answer public enquiries at unit or command level. Requests by members of the public for information on UFOs in Australia and for the RAAF assessment of their origin etc should be referred to the Department of Air where they will be dealt with by the Directorate of Public Relations.
It was not long before a conflict arose between the Directorates of Air Force Intelligence and Public Relations. It came to a head with the director of the Directorate of Public Relations (DPR) forwarding a detailed minute paper to DAFI, dated 16th August, 1966. It was entitled UFOs - RAAF HANDLING OF PROBLEM. The conflict was over whether “the distribution to interested members of the public of the `Summary of Unidentified Aerial Sightings Reported to Department of Air from 1960’” was to cease.
The Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI) was “keen to soft-pedal the UFO business” and gave “the reason for this cessation (as) the undesirability of wetting the interest of the public in UFOs.”
DPR’s reaction was terse and to the point: The `Summary’ grew out of a requirement for certain statistical UFO information to provide material for a ministerial reply to a parliamentary question.”
DPR willingly undertook to draft an answer for the Minister (a task which entailed folio- for-folio research through some four or five parts of the relevant file), because it felt that the otherwise burdensome task had some distinct side-benefit, namely, the collation of an unclassified and innocuous summary of UFO ‘sightings’ in Australia for the past five years.
DPR envisaged the day when it would be able to reply to all public UFO enquiries by the mere despatch of the ‘summary’ covered, if thought necessary, by a letter in which we explain that we are not prepared to engage in any subsequent disputation (i.e. take our ‘Summary’ or leave; we have told you all we know).
In order to keep this ‘Summary’ current, D/DAFI (Ops) was good enough to agree to provide DPR with the basic information which DPR would expect to have been security cleared for general release before adding the information to the ‘Summary’.
The DPR director made, “a plea to remove the present restriction on the sharing of our unclassified UFO information with the public....”
The DPR director said, “In summary: by continuing with the old policy of playing our UFO cards close to the chest, we only foster the incorrect (but nevertheless widely held) belief that we have much vital information to hide. On the other hand, by maintaining a current `Summary’ (which DPR is prepared to do, with your continued help) we dispose in one blow, of the UFO enthusiasts belief that:
(a) He is not being taken into the RAAF’s correspondence; and
(b) The RAAF is desperately determined to suppress UFO information to prevent national panic...
The Director of Public Relations concluded his Minute Paper to the Director of Air Force Intelligence, by stating, “while security is not DPR’s affair, our relations with the general public (cranks and all) certainly are and I feel strongly, from the PR point of view, that we are handling this whole UFO business in an unnecessarily rigid and unimaginative way.”
This theme was continued in another Department of Air Minute Paper, entitled “Unidentified Flying Object - RAAF policy” and dated 12th October, 1966. It emerged following a request from author, Richard Tambling, who had requested permission to publish B.G. Roberts’ Ballarat UFO conference presentation, in his forthcoming book, as an official view.
DAFI were not inclined to do this. The minute paper confirmed that uncertainty and confusion were keynotes in RAAF UFO policy during 1966 - hallmarks that would continue, albeit waxing and waning, right up to today.
It stated:
There appears to be some confusion concerning Departmental policy over UFOs ... on file... there is a ministerial statement to the effect:
“Anyone who is interested in sightings of UFOs can apply to the Department of Air for information on the subject and is welcome to a synopsis of UFO sightings which includes a very brief assessment of the probable causes.”
“This statement was made in answer to ministerial representation.
It would appear, however, that the policy represented by this statement may not have reflected the view of DAFI, despite earlier, although inconclusive evidence of his concurrence.
...DAFI has proposed to DGPP who in turn referred to DCAS that our approach to UFO reports be liberalised. It does not appear that either DGPP or DCAS were aware of the Minister’s statement. In my opinion we must either comply with the terms of that statement or inform the minister of our ‘new’ approach, if it is not intended to provide the synopsis of sightings and on this I am not at all together clear from reading the files.
It would, however, seem that agreement has not been reached that DPR is to handle all enquiries for information, however, it does not appear that DPR has been consulted on the extent of the liberalisation proposed by DAFI in answer to his (DPR) submission [the August 16, 1966, minute paper - B.C.] and could DPR indicate his views.
It would also appear that there is some need for rationalisation of our files on this subject. There are at least 4 different files which contain a confusion of policy, reported sightings and requests for information. Three of these files are classified, two of which are SECRET although there appears to be nothing in the files consistent with this classification. Could DAFI and DPR consider rationalising these files please...
As it turned out, the `Summary’ did indeed become the public front of the RAAF involvement in the Australian UFO controversy. By the end of the sixties, the `Summary’ crystallised as a largely annual affair.
No. 1 covered reports from 1960 to 1968. No. 2 covered 1969 accounts, while 1970 and 1971 reports appeared in `Summary’ No. 3. From 1972 to 1977 inclusive, the summaries appeared somewhat erratically, covering each year with numbers 4 to 9. The RAAF had embarked on a course that locked them into a bureaucratically orchestrated formula for handling the “UFO problem.”
George Pedley reported his experience to Tully Police at 7.30 pm, on January 19th. At 7 am, January 20th George Pedley and Sgt. A.V. Moylan went to the site of the incident. Sgt. Moylan, then contacted Townsville RAAF Base by telephone, on the morning of January 20th. Flt. Lt. Wallace advised Sgt. Moylan that he would forward a proforma questionnaire for completion by George Pedley. On Friday, January 21st, Flt. Lt. Wallace confirmed despatch of two copies of the sighting proforma by mail that same day and also requested Sgt. Moylan obtain “a sample of the grass from the scorched area.” At 3.30 pm, on the same day, Moylan returned to the site and took a sample “of the grass from the depression in the swamp grass at the site. The proforma was filled out by Moylan based on his interviews with George Pedley and was dated 26/1/66. Sgt. Moylan despatched the report and the sample on 26/1/66.
The following details are extracted from the RAAF “REPORT ON AERIAL OBJECT OBSERVED”Moylan filled out with George Pedley. Because so many conflicting claims have been made about what George Pedley said at the time, it is worthwhile to go back to the documentation filled out then:
Name of Observer:
George Alfred PEDLEY aged 28 years.
Manner of observation:
Travelling on a tractor about 1/2 mile from farm house of Albert PENNISI, Rockingham Road, Euramo. Attention attracted by hissing noise, clearly heard over noise of tractor-similar to air escaping from tyre; checked tyres and was looking about for source of noise when he saw object about 25 yards ahead. No optical instruments used in sighting.
Height or angle of elevation:
First seen at treetop height 30’. Rose vertically to about twice that height, then departed, climbing at about 45 degrees.
Speed, or angular velocity:
Extremely fast; No estimate of speed, but much faster than an aeroplane.
It was near treetops and these gave observer a good basis for estimating height.
Direction of flight with reference to landmarks or points of the compass:
Rose vertically to about 60 feet and departed south west climbing at about 45 degrees; appeared to be rotating for full time observed. (object appeared to
remain on) straight climbing path.
Existence of any physical evidence:
Clearly defined near circular depression in swamp grass at point from which object seen rising, about 32’ long and 25’ wide. Grass flattened to surface of 4’ of water lying in xxxx-clockwise curves.
[Sgt. Moylan, in his report, had typed in anti-clockwise initially and then corrected it to clockwise, by overtyping ‘anti’ with ‘xxxx’. The direction of the swirl at the site of the 19 January 1966 incident was to become a matter of ongoing confusion. The clockwise direction was the correction direction - B.C.]
Weather conditions experienced at time of observation: Clear sky; Hot sunshine.
Location of any air traffic in the vicinity at the time of sighting: Unknown but checked by RAAF Garbut.
[Flt. Lt. Wallace of Townsville RAAF base in a covering minute paper confirmed that
“there were no service or Civil aircraft operating in the area .. at the time of the sighting ..” - B.C.]
Any additional information: (Sgt. Moylan wrote)
Observer reported this matter to Tully Police at 7.30pm on 19/1/66 and at 7am, 20/1/66 went with me to the site of the depression in the swamp. His version then included the information that the object rose vertically, appeared to dip slightly and then went off in straight climbing path. He then said...further that there was no smell of combustion and no scorching of grass or trees visible; that the the flattened grass or rushes was quite green when he first saw the depression; on his return that afternoon the grass had turned brown.
(Sgt. Moylan further added:)
In this matter I formed the opinion that the depressed area in the swamp grass had been caused by a small helicopter and that the observer, in the early morning bright sunlight shining on the rotor may have mistaken the shape. His description of the take off lent some strength to my opinion. However, there was cleared land to the east for about 200 yards where such an aircraft could have more safely landed instead of the position indicated by the observer, close to trees. Later I was informed by Wallace Evans of ...Tully, an electrician that he has seen similar markings in a swamp at Kurrumine Beach and is quite certain that it was caused by a whirlwind, sucking up water into a waterspout,
uprooting the grass and laying it out in a similar pattern. At 3.30pm, 21/1/66 I took a sample of the grass at the site and have forwarded it under separate cover on even date.
Flt. Lt. T.D. Wright, for Air Officer Commanding, Headquarters Operational Command, RAAF, Penrith, New South Wales (NSW), on-forwarded police Sgt. Moylan’s report on George Pedley’s UFO sighting and Flt. Lt. Wallace’s covering minute paper, to the Department of Air, Russell Offices, Canberra. His communication classified RESTRICTED, which was channelled to the Directorate of Air Force Intelligence (DAFI), also indicated,“This headquarters believes that the depressions of the swamp grass were caused by small isolated waterspouts.”
In response to an enquiry, dated 2nd February, 1966, from the Commonwealth Aerial Phenomena Investigation Organisation (CAPIO), the Secretary, Department of Air, Mr. A.B. McFarlane, wrote on 11th February, 1966:
“Investigations of the area surrounding the reported “Nests”, testing of samples taken from around them and interrogation of persons involved in the report failed to reveal anything of significance.
“However, during enquiries a number of local residents stated that the reported “nests” are fairly common during the onset of the “wet”. Furthermore, the University of Queensland stated that there was nothing unnatural in the samples submitted and assessed that the “nests” could have been the result of severe turbulence, which normally accompany line squalls and thunderstorms prevalent in NORTH QUEENSLAND at the time of the year.
“There is no explanation for the visible phenomena reported but it could have been associated with or the result of “down draughts”, “willy willies” or “water spouts” that are known to occur in the area.
“.. for information ....in January of this year from an airfield in the tropics (a number of photographs taken give) a ne example of the type and growth of a cloud formation occurring with a severe “down draught”
This whirling mass of tropical air associated with thunderstorm activity, on reaching the earth’s surface may dissipate and subside or persist giving rise to dust eddies, water spouts, etc, and leaving a tell tale circular pattern on the ground.
Should it occur over a swampy reed bed the effect would be to fatten the reeds with a circular pattern. resultant photographs and investigations of the “nests” seem to t in with this theory and is accepted as a possible cause of the phenomena.”
It is fascinating to note how Secretary McFarlane’s cursory explanatory exposition, no doubt inspired by “the tornado-like meteorological phenomena” infested skies over Willow Grove, Victoria and Vaucluse Beach, NSW, anticipated by almost 2 decades Dr. Terence Meaden’s early theoretical attempts to explain the English “crop circles” of the 1980s. Dr. Meaden would mistakenly assume that George Pedley saw his “vortex” at 9 pm, not 9 am, which is a fatal flaw in the mechanism he put forth to explain the report.
The only other significant official statement on the Tully sighting I found in the RAAF les was included in a letter by Mr. G.J. Odgers, Director of Public Relations, Department of Defence (Air Office), dated 17th December, 1973, directed to Charles Wright, a journalist working on an article for the national newspaper, The Australian.
George Odgers’ Air Office public relations department had clearly gleaned from the 1966 DAFI files details an explanation of what George Pedley had seen, that the original RAAF officers and Department officers back in 1966 had not determined:
“Although a conclusive determination could not be made, the most probable explanation was that the sighting was of a ‘willy willy’ or circular wind phenomenon which flattened the reeds and sucked up debris to a height of about 30 feet, thus forming what appeared to be a ‘flying saucer’, before moving off and dissipating. Hissing noises are known to be associated with ‘willy willies’ and the theory is also substantiated by the clockwise configuration of the depression.
Mr. Odgers further added, more generally,
“All to often unusual occurrences are reported in sensational terms with little or no attempt made at rational assessment. The general subject is ‘newsworthy’ and lends itself to sensationalism and guesswork, but in most cases logical explanations follow from careful investigation. You will appreciate that there is nothing to be gained from reopening old cases.” [a sentiment I would not agree with - B.C.]
The Busst communication with the new PM Harold Holt seems to have created quite a splash – further confirmation of the importance of the Tully (Euramo) object and its strange “alien” stigmata – the “saucer nest” found on 19 January 1966.
References:
Thanks to Shane Ryan and Grant Lavac
Bill Chalker, “UFO Sub Rosa Down Under” (1996)
Bill Chalker, “The OZ Files – the Australian UFO story” (1996)
Bill Chalker, http://theozfiles.blogspot.com/(see the Tully stories)
Iain McCalman, “John Busst” (2024)
Iain McCalman, “The Reef – A passionate history” (2013)
NAA files (Series Number M2606, Control Symbol 112, Item number 4982058)
